andreas_manessinger

Nish, I've seen the same thing with the same lens some days ago, while we had extremely cold weather. I am pretty sure it is temperature-related. Under those conditions I also had frequent autofocus problems, that always went away after i turned the camera off/on. Thus this lens' internal electronics may be more sensitive to low temperature than that of other lenses.

I have a Tokina 11-16/2.8 and the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6. The Tokina is a sharper lens, especially as my Sigma seems to need adjustment, but even new, the Sigma was not as sharp as the Tokina. I suppose the Tokina 12-24 will be of similar quality.

 

As wideness goes, I miss the 10mm even on the 11-16, thus I can certainly see applications, where you may feel restricted by 12mm on the wide end.

 

For me the real question is minimum focusing distance. The Tokina shares the 30cm of the 11-16, and in contrast the Sigma and the new Nikon 10-24 go down to 24cm. That's the distance from front element to sensor plane, but as these are physically long retro-focus lenses, the effective focusing distance (that determines perspective) is much more different, making it possible to effectively go much, much nearer with the Sigma or Nikon than with the Tokina.

 

This is not necessarily a bad thing. I suppose the good optical quality of the Tokinas is also helped by their very conservative focusing policy. On the other hand, there are shots, that you can't take with the Tokina. Of course these can as well be seen as gimmicky, but then maybe not. It's probably more a matter of style. Some may miss these shots, some may not. If you make such images (small object as gigantic foreground, roots or cracks in the ground taken almost from ground level, you need as much DOF as you can get, thus you typically operate the lens at f11 or above. This is a range where the Sigma is also quite good in the corners and overall very sharp.

 

Again, it may or may not affect you, but it certainly should be considered.

@Alvin: Thanks. No, it has no rubber gasket, but the same is true for all Sigmas and Tokinas. It may be better than none, but then, it can't be so important. I remember having stood near waterfalls more than once, most of the time with the Sigma 10-20, at least once with the Tokina 11-16. Both lenses got pretty wet, I never had a single problem. Personally I would not base my decision on that.

 

@Nish: It sometimes does not focus. You just have to turn the camera off and then on again (two flicks of the finger, you can do that in less than a second) and it focuses perfectly. And yes, whenever it does focus (which is almost always, these instances are extremely rare) it focuses well. The irritating thing is only, that in such situations it does not hunt like other lenses (it may do that as well, just as any lens), instead it does nothing.

 

I am not sure if pointing the focus point at some high-contrast edge can get it out of that state. I have to test for that, it only does not happen often enough (thankfully). Turning off/on always helps.

 

@Tim: Interesting. I have not heard of the phenomenon with non-VC lenses. Otoh, I may not have asked for it :)

<p>I have the 17-50/2.8 VC and use it on a D300 since November 6. In that time I have used it exclusively for the images on my blog. I have written an ongoing series of posts that together are kind of a <a href="http://manessinger.com/tag/tamron-17-502-8-vc-review">review of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC</a>.</p>

 

<p>In short: it is a fine lens and wonderfully suited for this dark time of the year this side of the globe. The guys down under want it in six months :)</p>

 

<p>There are two issues that I have found so far. First are distortions. Distortions are complex (a combination of barrel and pincushion) and also a little high on the short end. Normally this troubles me not the least. Most wide-angle lenses have them, and when I need perfectly straight lines, I simply use PTLens for correction. The problem is, PTLens does not support it yet. It supports the older version, but they are really very different lenses, thus the distortion profiles don't match. In fact the new version seems to be better on the long end. PTLens tries to correct a pincushion distortion that really is not there. The solution for this would of course be to finally make the calibration images for PTLens, send them to Tom Niemann and have it in the next update of PTLens. I have not done that yet.</p>

 

<p>The second issue is why the conclusion for my review is still waiting to be written: Under certain circumstances that seem to be rare and random (I still try to figure out if I can detect a pattern), the combo of D300 and this lens does not focus. I make an image, all is well, I try to make another image seconds later, no autofocus. I turn the camera off and on again, voilà, perfect focus again. It's rare, very rare, but when it happened a few times (and I really lost two images on the street due to it), it was so irritating, that I had to look into that issue.</p>

 

<p>So far not much has come from it. If at all, it happens less often lately. I still see no pattern and it is no problem in practical use. From reports of my readers I see a possibility that this could be a phenomenon generally occurring with stabilized Tamron lenses. You find a few reports regarding the 28-300 VC on the net.</p>

 

<p>Well, that's it. Lots of sample images, reports about sharpness, bokeh, stabilization quality, etc. are on my blog. Overall I recommend this lens.</p>

No, not crazy. Coming from a bridge cam, I jumped right into the D200, and it was a fantastic idea. I bought the Nikon 18-200 VR as a kit lens. Now I practically don't use that lens any more, but for more than a year it was my main lens, while I slowly acquired other lenses (mostly primes) and tried to find out what works for me and what not.

 

In hindsight I would probably not recommend the 18-200 any more. I'd go for a Nikon 16-85 VR (don't have it, but people rave about it), probably coupled with a Nikon 70-300 VR (have it, it's great), or if you don't mind buying third-party lenses, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC (have it, nice lens) instead of the 16-85. It's faster, stabilized as well, but it will leave a small gap in your lineup. If you want only one lens initially, the 16-85 or 17-50 would give you the best value.

 

If you are adventurous, you could even buy a single prime lens, e.g. the Nikon 35/1.8 or 50/1.8, and use only that lens for a while. This makes for a great and fast learning experience, because the fixed focal length forces you to think about what you want to frame, where you need to stand, etc. Be prepared though, that you will miss more opportunities than when using a zoom.

Oh, sorry, didn't see the "good parallel lines" clause. Forget about the Sigma :)

I'd like to second the recommendation of Sigma's 20/1.8. A fine lens and by far the one that will focus closest. I call it my wide-angle macro. Have you ever cared for bokeh in a wide-angle? This one won't disappoint you.

 

It works fine for me, it may not work as well for the architecture crowd. Too much distortion. But then again, this is a very fast wide-angle macro :)

 

Oh, and it's big and heavy as well. And it needs 82mm filters. My B+W polarizer cost about a third of the lens' price. It's still worth it though.

Ray,

 

I am not yet through with my tests, but so far, from comments on my blog and from what I found on the Internet, it seems that the combination of recent Nikon camera and stabilized Tamron lens is prone to such behavior. Sometimes it won't focus. Turn the camera off, back on, it focuses again.

 

What exactly the problem is, if it really is the combination Nikon/Tamron, that's not clear. It's just that I have looked for problems with that combo and that I've found them.

 

All incidents that I know of, involve stabilized Tamrons on Nikon D3, D700 and D300 cameras, thus cameras with the CAM3500 autofocus module. This is not the AF module in the D90. That may make it worse, better or have no influence at all. It's just something to keep in mind.

 

How often does it happen? No idea. Sometimes more often, yesterday not a single time.

 

For me, taking images for my blog, mostly of static subjects, frequently using motion blur as an artistic tool, this all does not matter. If I don't get a shot, I simply try it again. If it involves passers-by, I just wait for the next people coming along. I wouldn't use this lens/camera combination professionally though, say in photo journalism. Imagine the one unrepeatable image, the image that would write history and make you famous, and then the damn thing does not focus.

 

You have to decide what is important for you, if you need VC or just a fast lens. If you believe you can't afford to miss the occasional shot (and it's only occasional), then this lens is probably not for you, at least not without having tested it on your camera for a day. If you can get it from your dealer under the condition that you can return it within a day or two if it exhibits that problem, go for it.

 

What are your alternatives? Well, there is always a fast prime like the 35/1.8 that you have. A much more expensive alternative is the Nikon 17-55/2.8. It's not stabilized, but stabilization does not help with children's action anyway, and it's certainly a very reputable lens, technically better than the Tamron, just as it should be.

 

What would I do if I were in your shoes? I'd keep the 35/1.8 and probably add a Sigma 24/1.8. That's just that little bit wider that you may need indoors.

I have both. Actually what frustrates me most with the Tokina is the minimum focus distance. It's 30cm instead of 24cm for Sigma and Nikon.

 

That does not sound like much of a difference, but you have to have in mind that this distance is measured from nearest focus point to the sensor plane. Otoh, the distance that determines perspective, is from the nearest focus point to 10 or 11mm behind the front lens. If you look at it that way, and if you remember how long these lenses really are, due to their retro-focus construction, the difference is dramatic. There is a whole lot of dramatic images that you can't make with the Tokina.

<p>Regarding computer: any current model will do. Make sure you get 4GB of memory and Windows 7, but this should be default.</p>

 

<p>You'll want an <strong>extra</strong> internal 2TB drive. Make sure the computer has eSATA (external SATA) for attaching an external drive of equal capacity for backup. USB is a little bit slow for syncing such amounts of data, it should suffice though if you do it regularly. Use a free program like <a href="http://www.rdcomp.net/ezbackitup/">EZBack-it-up</a> for syncing data. That's what I use and it works well.</p>

The sizes are correct. You could get even bigger sizes in a format that describes each pixel in prose, in other words, there is no upper bound to the size of a file containing a certain amount of information. There is a lower bound though.

 

I use a D300 since November 2007, I have used a D200 before. My current RAW files are between 14 and 20 MB when stored as 14 bit NEF with loss-less compression. I photograph maximum size NEF + Fine Large JPEG, thus there is always an additional JPEG, either directly from the camera or the result of my work in Photoshop. Since February 2007 I have stored the Photoshop files with full layers as well. In Photoshop, when cropping, I always choose to "hide", not to "delete" the part of the image outside the area that I crop to, thus the Photoshop files contain maximum information. I produce at least one Photoshop file per day, frequently more. My Photoshop files range from about 100MB up to around 700MB per image. I need about 300GB of storage per year.

 

And now the point: THIS PROBLEM IS SOLVED!

 

I have two computers in two places, I use one as backup for the other, thus I have no backup solution, risking the loss of one week's (or one weekend's) work. Each computer had a 1TB hard drive until spring, and since then I have upgraded both to have 2TB drives. Each drive has cost me about 240€, current prices are more in the 160€ range.

 

That's it. Problem solved. Hard drive space is growing faster than my storage needs. At any time I need a single drive for storage and another drive for backup. I fill them with approximately constant rate, one Terabyte in three years. When the drive is almost full, I replace it with the then current biggest size, normally that's twice the size of the old drive.

 

The problem is not as easily solved for professional photographers who do wedding gigs. Well, if you use a 5DMkII or a D3X, your file sizes may be around twice as big as mine, and with maybe 2000 images per day you'd probably still run out of space with my solution. What's definitely not solved is the storage problem for HD video. If you do a lot of video with your DSLR, especially 1080p with the Canons, you will run out of space.

 

There is a linear growth in storage needs and quadratic growth in available storage sizes. In every such situation, there is a point of cross-over, that is when the available space is not only growing fast enough but is also big enough (and from then on always bigger than enough).

 

For normal DSLR photography we are already past that point. For videos the cross-over is yet to happen, but due to the quadratic nature vs linear nature, it will happen as well.

OK, I eat my words :)

I wouldn't consider video an important feature, and if you need it, you know it anyway. Of the remaining things different, I definitely like one: the increased speed (pictures per second) when you photograph 14 bit RAW.

 

As an explanation: The D300 can use 14 bit RAW of 12 bit RAW. That hardly makes a difference if you don't do extreme things in post-processing, it does make a difference if you do. Thus I always set the camera to 14 bit RAW. No need to throw data away, regardless of how marginally useful it may be.

 

The problem now is, that the D300 at 14 bit can't shoot at the otherwise nominal 6 images per second, it falls back to meager 2 or 2.5, I don't have the data at hand. With the D300s, Nikon has removed the restriction, supposedly by including a faster processor.

 

I am no sports or news shooter, thus I normally don't use high(or low)-speed continuous mode at all, with one exception: That's when I make bursts of bracketed images, later to be combined into an HDR image. Earlier I have shot HDR exclusively from the tripod, but since nowadays HDR software like Essential HDR or Photomatix Pro can automatically align images, it is possible to shoot HDR handheld. That makes HDR much more useful. The problem is, that it still works better when the mis-alignments due to camera movement are small, and the faster you take the sequence, the better the alignment is.

 

Thus: if you need video, you need the D300s. If you shoot HDR, the D300s has a nominal advantage. Otherwise it does not matter.

Ray,

 

one more thing: You may want to wait some days before committing to the Tamron 17-50 VC. On my D300 I sometimes see a strange behavior with autofocus:

 

I turn the camera on and it does not focus. I turn it off and then on again, it focuses just fine. I have never seen such behavior with any of my 15 other AF lenses.

 

It may be my sample, it may be the combination of my sample with just my D300, but then, there may be a general pattern to it. That's what I currently try to find out. I expect to follow up to the current review series on my blog with an entry dedicated to autofocus.

 

There is another thing: This morning and sometime yesterday I missed shots that should have been perfectly focused. The camera had locked onto the background. Of course this may happen all the time with any lens, but then again, two such occurrences on two consecutive days, and both times I had been sure to have covered a perfectly focusable target fully with the center spot.

 

Again, I will look into that, see how autofocus behaves in general, especially in different modes, but these things take time. It may take me a week or so.

It is not a small percentage of pictures that may be improved by VR/VC. The difference is dramatic. I definitely can repeatably hold a 50 at 1/80s, maybe I can even go down to 1/50s or probably 1/30s when I have a good day. With the Tamron I can hold 50mm repeatably at 1/15s, with 1/8s possible if I have the time to repeat the shot should it fail. At 17mm I can hold 1/8s all the time, and normally 1/4s if it's not critical.

 

This is not just slightly better, this is a dramatic difference, but of course only for static subjects or if you are inclined to use motion blur for artistic purposes :)

 

This: VR/VC is not for sports and not for most of your children images, but for a wide range of images, certainly including landscapes, architecture and museums, etc, it is tremendously useful.

<p>I have just bought the new Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC, i.e. the bigger, more expensive version with stabilization - and I love it. So far I have written a series of three posts on my blog, no strict technical review, although it is certainly much more than plain impressions. See the full text and the sample images <a href="http://manessinger.com/tag/tamron-17-502-8-vc-review">on my blog</a>.</p>

 

<p>Basically I wanted a lens for those moments when I see things that I can't easily return to the other day with a new lens mounted. This is the typical situation on a trip. Many of those places you see once in a lifetime, many again only after years. While I love primes and use them normally, a zoom is much more versatile in such situations. I would have wanted the range of the Nikon 16-85, but I finally settled with the Tamron for its constant f2.8. In low light this is a tremendous advantage, especially on the long end. Same goes for children: they move, thus stabilization does not help in that case, a faster lens does.</p>

 

<p>As regards the 20mm gap, I wouldn't worry about that. This is a case of a few steps forward/backward. But then again: read my blog, see the images, consider my reasoning and how it applies to you - or not. In the end, nobody but you can make the decision.</p>

Fine. Please keep us informed what the problem really was :)

I have the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 and the Tokina 11-16/2.8. My Sigma seems to need adjustment, but it is the much more versatile lens. The problem with the Tokina is the very small zoom range (although the optical quality is fine) and - even more important - that the Tokina only focuses down to 30cm, while the Sigma focuses to 24cm. Those distances are from the sensor plane, but with such retro-focus wide-angle lenses, perspective is as if the sensor were the real focal length behind the front element. Thus the differences in perspective are dramatic. Many of the "small foreground seemingly big" effects that you so frequently see with ultra-wides are not possible with the Tokina.

 

As regards the Tamron, I have not used it myself, but I can remember nothing but bad reviews. If I were to buy another ultra-wide, I'd take the Nikon 10-24/4-5.6. It seems to be of good quality and has the most useful range. It's the by far most expensive though.

You may run into an autofocus issue. Try the "AF fine tune". On my D300 it is in the setup menu. I have no idea why, but on all my Sigma lenses, even when they focused perfectly on the D200, I need to dial in -15 in the "AF fine tune" menu. Try if that value works for you. If it gets worse, try a positive value. I strongly suppose this will solve your problem.

 

To test at near focus and f2.8, use the chart at http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart and follow the instructions. To test at far focus and f2.8, simply go outside.

 

If that all does not work, if you happen to get perfect focus at 24mm but instead wrong focus at 70mm, then you really have a lens problem and your best bet is to have the lens adjusted. You'd have to consult your dealer or the Sigma representative on that.

On that camera you really want to have a lens that autofocuses. Imagine the shallow depth of field at f1.4 and 85mm! The viewfinder in a D3000 is not as big as in a full frame (FX) camera, manually focusing will make you mad.

 

If a fixed telephoto focal length works for you (does it? have you ever tried it, maybe on film?), then a much better solution would be the cheaper AF-S VR 105/2.8 Micro. DOF is not as shallow, on the other hand it is a longer lens and it is stabilized. With the 85/1.4 you'd need about 1/125s to hold the shot. Even for an f1.4 lens this will quickly drive you into high ISOs. With stabilization you should be able to hold 1/30s, that are two stops, just what the 85/1.4 is faster. Thus you don't lose low-light capability, but you gain autofocus. Macro comes for free :)

Ahh, two links in a post, one was converted. Oh well. Let's try it again :)

 

http://manessinger.com/tag/nikon-d300-review

 

Hope that's OK. Yes, I know, it's self-promoting, but I really have written a lot about it then, that I don't want to repeat.

<p>The camera improves drastically upon an already fine camera. The short answer: yes, it is worth the money. The best long answer that I can give, is to point you to a <a hred="http://manessinger.com/tag/nikon-d300-review">series of blog posts</a> that I made when I switched from the D200 to the D300. Interestingly enough, although high ISO is much better, there is much more to it.</p>

 

<p>You may also be interested in my series of posts about <a href="http://manessinger.com/tag/high-iso">high ISO</a> with the D300. I think that I make a quite convincing argument, that for B+W work, this camera is perfectly usable at ISO 6400. It all depends upon what you need. Sure, every time someone asks your question, the answer is always "Go for the D700, D3, D3s...", but nobody tells you that this voids much of your investment in lenses, forces you to buy extremely expensive and unwieldy bazookas for long-range work that, given you use a DX camera, you can perfectly do with an inexpensive and fine lens like the 70-300 VR, and so on and so forth. Sure, you can do it, but it won't buy you much more than the ISO response that you will have two years later on DX.</p>

 

<p>Anyway. Once again: it's a real upgrade, and not only for the sensor.</p>

None. I have spent a lot of money on high quality UV filters for my first ten or so lenses, but since then I have stopped. You don't need them. Well, in some situations, for example near a waterfall, I suppose they give peace of mind, but in all other cases they are unnecessary. I have never damaged a lens. If I had, it would not have cost as much to replace the lens as I have initially spent on UV filters. It's just that the shops like to sell them, because they have high margins. That's the reason why every shop will recommend a filter for each new lens.

Post-processing. Both images have an artificial blur added :)

Ryan, give me a few titles and I'll tell you about the pp :)